Did The Uni Make Them Better?

By Phil Hecken, on April 17th, 2010

By Phil Hecken

Some interesting thoughts popped up in the comments section this week, specifically regarding how we remember our favorite team’s uniforms. Even more specifically, several questions were raised as to whether a team’s success, or lack thereof, affects our opinions of a particular uniform. Did a team winning a championship while wearing a specific uniform set positively (or negatively) influence a fan’s view of said uniform. Conversely, did a team’s lack of success, or in the extreme, complete ineptness, despite wearing an otherwise beautiful uniform, conjure up negative feelings towards that uniform? It’s an interesting case study.

Lets look at several examples. We’ll begin with Ricko’s baby, the Minnesota Twins. When the Twins moved indoors to the HHH Metrodome in 1982, as you can see, they were attired in sky blue roadies and white polyester doubleknit pullovers. Not great uniforms to be sure, but those early to mid-80’s teams weren’t particularly good, and eventually longtime owner Cal Griffith sold the team to Carl Pohlad. But they had several rising stars like Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek on the scene and were an improving club. And in 1987, not only did the Twins sport new uniforms, but the went and won their first ever world series wearing them. Four years later, they’d go and win their second. New uniforms. Two world series victories in 4 years. Obviously, one had something to do with the other.

Well, of course it didn’t, but the fact remains that most Minnesotans, rightfully so, associate those uniforms with winning, pride and a return to greatness. When they moved out of the Homerdome this spring, and announced their new uniform set last November, many fans of the team, not just Ricko, bemoaned the new (road anyway) uniforms. Now, whether you agree or disagree with my personal position that pinstripes don’t belong on a road uniform, or whether or not the new road uniforms represent an improvement over the old ones, some of the first complaints about the new uniforms were “those look like the one we wore when were bad” (or words to that effect, cleaned up for this family blog). The fans of the team were so attached to the old uniform (which I would argue was never an attractive uniform, but that’s just my opinion) and the winning that once came when it was worn, that they dismissed the new road uniform (which I would also argue is a significantly better looking uniform — but again that’s just my personal opinion) out of hand. I read comments like “why would they ditch the road pinstripes? We won two world series’ wearing those!” Obviously, it wasn’t the uniform that won those two rings, but rather the team wearing them. Still, it’s a good memory for most Twins fans.

Lets take another example. The 1986 Mets. While most Mets fans have nothing but amazin’ memories of that 1986 team, I think most who look at it purely as a uniform would argue it was pretty freakin’ ugly. Except for the current black monstrosities the Mets now sport, the orange and blue racing stripes they wore were my least favorite uniform set. But many Mets fans love them, and they remain a very popular item both in stores and at Citi Field Shea today. It’s instantly recognizable as the 1986 world series uniform. But let’s be honest — it’s not a good looking uniform — polyester pullover (shockingly with belted pants) and garish full body stripes that frequently misaligned. For the obsessive compulsive uniform affectionado, just a bad, bad look, especially when you consider the gorgeous uniform they sported in winning their first world series.

But what about the other side of the coin? What about bad teams who wore beautiful uniforms? One of the oft-cited examples of this is the New England Patriots red uniform in which they reached Super Bowl XX, but for the most part, didn’t have much success. They had worn that uniform, or a very close facsimile, from their inception and through the years with a few variations. When the Pats finally went through the first of several uniform iterations, all involving a blue jersey, success quickly followed: while they lost in 1997 super bowl wearing the second generation unis, the would go on to win the big one in 2002, 2004 and 2005, and losing a hard fought super bowl to the Giants in 2008. Clearly, the change to blue jerseys made the Patriots better, yes? Of course not. But that’s the perception. When the Pats broke out their red AFL throwbacks this past season, uniform lovers rejoiced but Patriots fans immediately were struck with thoughts of “oh great, their loser uniforms.” Despite the fact that the AFL throwback is one of the more gorgeous uniforms seen of the field, especially today, many fans of the New England team were less than thrilled. Why? Because their memories of the uniform weren’t always happy ones.

More recently, last weekend the Astros had a Turn Back The Clock evening where they threwback to the uniforms they wore in 1965. Many of us remembered those uniforms, and even those who never saw them before remarked upon how good they looked. Some, myself included, felt this was the best uniform that team (who have gone through more uniform interations than one can shake a stick at) ever wore. But, alas, those uniforms weren’t exactly associated with a winning team. Certainly that was no fault of the uniform. And to this day, with the exception of the attention they received for the TBTC game, they are largely forgotten. Unfortunately for the Astros, their only world series apperance came in their current crop of uniforms which, while certainly not the worst uniform they have ever sported (or thrown-back to), isn’t nearly as classic or beautiful as those 1965 duds or those which immediately followed. But one of the more beautiful uniforms of all time, and certainly in Astros history, is largely forgotten due to the large amount of losing that was done in it.

Those are just four examples of good teams wearing (in my opinion at least) bad uniforms, or bad teams wearing good uniforms — but clearly, in the minds of fans of the team, the uniform — or at least the greatness or awfulness of the uniform — is tied into the success of the team while wearing it.

Examples exist everywhere. The flip side of 1986? Exhibit A. Is it any wonder many Sox fans weren’t too thrilled in the 2008 offseason when the team announced they’d be wearing this in 2009? The BFBS/”Lets wear Raider Colors” Kings had their greatest success in that uniform. Now is that a better uniform than the current BFBS uni? Maybe, but it reminds Kings fans that the best teams they ever had wore this and not this or this.

Same with your reigning Stanley Cup champions. The current uniform will be associated with Sid the Kid and success, even though this, this or even this and this are, in the minds of many, clearly superior. But success in those uniforms was missing, so in the minds of many Pens fans, those uniforms will never be held in as high a regard as these or these.

So what about you, Uni Watchers? Do you feel your impression of a team’s specific uniform (for any era) is influenced by the success (or failure) of the team sporting that uniform? There are numerous examples of bad uniforms worn by great teams, just as there are beautiful uniforms worn by bad teams. Do those bad uniforms get held in higher esteem and the good uniforms become associated with losing? Let’s hear what you think. And, while we’re at it…is there a certain uni (of any vintage) you’d love for your team to return to wearing, even if their record while wearing it was less than stellar?

~~~~~~~~~~

St. Louis Browns 1939-1949: The St. Louis Browns began life as the Milwaukee Brewers in 1901, moving after only one season to St. Louis, where they renamed the “Browns,” a reference to the original St. Louis national league team of the 1880’s, who by that time were themselves renamed the “Cardinals.” They would remain in St. Louis until the end of the 1953 season, when they would move to Baltimore and be renamed the “Orioles.”

The Browns weren’t very good. In fact, in their first 20 seasons, they posted only four winning ones. They, were, however, quite popular in St. Louis in their early years, and they owned Sportsman’s Park, which they shared with the Cardinals. However, once the Cards won the world series in 1926, they became ‘second class’ citizens even in their own park. Unfortunately, they would never be more popular than the Cards again.

For their first four decades they would toil in mediocrity. Until World War II, that is. In a major leagues depleted of talent due to the war, the Browns fielded their only pennant winner in 1944, where they would advance to the World Series and lose to, of course, their tenants — the Cards. But baseball teams on Uni Watch are not so much judged by their wins and lossses, but by their attire. And, for an 11 year period, spanning 1939-1949, and encompassing their lone pennant and world series, the Browns wore some gorgeous stirrups and some equally beautiful uniforms. Unfortunately, if color photos of their stirrups exist, I couldn’t find any. But, had I, their stirrups would have looked like this. That’s a shot from the 1944 world series, which the Browns lost to the Cards.

Again, color photos including the stirrups prove elusive, so I colorized an old b & w photo to give you an idea. This color still (appears to be from a home movie) shows a far background shot of the rups, and this old ad featuring one-armed Pete Gray also gives a nice flavor of the stirrups.

Guess The Game From The Scoreboard: Back to baseball today and this one may prove tricky — or not — since the ballpark is obvious, and you can likely figure out the opposing team. Just find out when the abortion doc killers rail crossing safety crowd is in town. Ready? Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. Date, location and final score, please, and be sure to link to your answer. And, as always, if you enjoy the game, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

Back again with more Uniform Tweaks, Concepts and Revisions today. Lots to get to, and if you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

~~~

First up is a BIG set of tweaks, spanning the three major sports, as well as hockey, from John Follett. John sent me 9 “weeks” worth, and last weekend we looked at the first three. Here’s the second batch:

Week 4 – San Antonio Spurs: Always loved the logo but I did feel that the uniform needed to be upgraded. Again, one of the better weeks of our competition. Snowy was clearly watching one too many Bruce Lee movies when he drew this up. Snowy would take a lot of heat for the logo design and eventually made attempts to make it look less “Ninja-esq”. Even better, Snowy went the extra step with his court design. Sam is still fighting his lawsuit against a certain WNBA team, following his submission. As for me, I ended up with more change than I initially set out for. Some weren’t a fan of the primary color change, so I did re-contrast my logo.

Week 5 – Washington Redskins: A borderline classic but definitely not the sexiest look we have ever seen. I know I am looking to give this team a much improved look that will help to shy them away from their very offensive & controversial mascot. Member “collyflower” gets in on the action. My first submission maintained the Native American look but shied away from the Indian head logo. My 2nd submission is less elaborate but definitely more 21st century. A look from Snowy that would drive Paul Lukas crazy for more than a couple reasons. Snowy even goes as far as to show us a different angle of his design.

Week 6 – Nashville Predators: Due to popular demand, we go hockey in Week 6. Not exactly sure where Nashville came up with “Predators” but the design looks more like a minor league arena football team. Snowy strikes first blood, eat your heart out Chattanooga Lookouts. Snowy would later re-buff his design. Debate sparked as to how “NHL” our creations really are…so we put them to test. After hearing some raccoon horror story coming out of Tennessee, I came up with something I felt was more relevant. How did my design fit in? See for yourself.

Hey, I have a uni tweak that I wanted to share. I created a new Blue Jays home uniform. I (along with probably many others) was tired of the Jays using countless fonts, so I made them all the same. It uses the font from the away “Toronto” to make the “Blue Jays” script, the NOB, and the jersey #s. For the hat logo, I took the late 90’s logo and updated the color to match the current scheme. I made the hat and socks primary blue, because after all they are the Blue Jays (and not the Blackbirds, as they would like you to believe). And no uniform would be complete without a nice pair of striped socks. So there is what I consider to be a major improvement to Toronto’s current home unis.

~~~

Closing out the show today is Jesse Alkire, who has some Angels refinements:

All my conceptual uniforms try to convey a sense of tradition, and my Angels uniforms combine a few. First off, the neck piping is a longtime Angels tradition dating back to the 60s, but I’ve changed the color to gold so the piping forms a sort of halo. This contrasts nicely, I think, with the rest of the piping on the sleeves and pants, which remains red.

The pants take cues from the Detroit Tigers and add a throwback feel to the set, while the belts are changed from black to red. Making red the primary color once again, the shoes would also be red (only the 2nd team in MLB to have red shoes).

The silver halo is changed to gold and three more “halos” are added as sock stripes, which rounds out the home uniform changes.

Drawing inspiration from the St. Louis Cardinals, the Angels road set trades in some red for some navy. Navy belts, undershirts, socks, and a mostly Navy hat are the changes here from the home set. The ‘ANAHEIM’ script makes its return to the road jersey, as it should, along with the old but now re-colored California sleeve patch.

Overall I wanted to give the Angels something unique — the home/red, road/navy aesthetic, combined with the red shoes and yellow “halo” neck piping really give the Angels a distinct identity, I feel, something that most teams lack.

Thanks for posting these! Loved the great comments I got on my last set.

~~~

That’s it for the tweak show for today. Check back next time for more.

~~~~~~~~~~

42 Redux: Just in case anyone missed Thursday’s official Jackie Robinson Day (ya know, the actual anniversary of Jackie’s breaking into the big leagues and smashing the color barrier in the process), yesterday brought us more of the same — some teams wore “42” for a second day, while others, who did not play on Thursday, broke out the 42’s for the first time.

Now, personally, I love Jackie Robinson Day…for a DAY. It’s ridiculous that it’s now spanning two days (and I believe some teams may wear the 42 at home if they were on the road for both Thursday and Friday). Seriously, it’s very quickly becoming OVERKILL, and they’re taking a very special, very appropriate gesture and turning it into a mockery.

There is a simple solution, particularly if MLB is going to mandate that all teams wear 42 every April 15th. All they need to do is two things: (1) schedule ALL teams to play on April 15th (yes, I know this year that date fell on a Thursday, which is traditionally a transition day for many clubs, but for one day, they can deal with it); and (2) schedule all teams the following season to play a home and home with the team they played the season before, so that those teams on the road can experience the 42’s at home the following year. Done and done. After 2 years, schedule another team and repeat. Seriously, can it be that hard?

Rainout? Fine, let both teams wear the 42’s when they schedule the make up. But to keep this going for two (or possibly more days)? Awesome gesture becomes overplayed gimmick overnight (no pun intended).

192 comments to Did The Uni Make Them Better?

Frank from B-more|
April 17, 2010 at 7:47 am |

Many O’s fans long for the return of the Cartoon Bird cap. The team did a good job of returning Baltimore to the road uni but many Oriole fans want the cartoon bird returned as a tie to all the WS teams of the past. You see it around town and in the stands by the 100s of fans who still attend games at OPaCY.

Another Pens example springs to mind- the mid 90’s logo. In my mind, it’s a far better designed logo- clean design, much more realistic penguin, overall great look. In the mind of Pens fans, it signifies the isles ending their chance of a 3 peat, with the new unis breaking their streak of cups. Now it’s the “pigeon”, even though it was much closer to a penguin then the skating penguin will ever be, and the far superior design.

scott|
April 17, 2010 at 8:34 am |

Are racing stripes on a baseball uniform automatically bad? I know teams sported them before the 1980s, but it seems like it became a sort of tradition during that decade, with the Astros, Expos, Mets, and Phillies all wearing uniforms with that design. Personally, I thought racing stripes with pinstriped uniforms was overkill.

Jackie Robinson is as close to a hero as I have. I can’t imagine the crap he had to live through.

But having everyone wear 42 just seems silly. The Padres looked doubly silly in their throwbacks.

And then I put on the Rays game thinking “well at least that’s over” and there they are, all wearing 42. Hopefully, they’ll dispense with that nonsense in the completion of the suspended game. HAR-rumph.

I know they auction off the 42 jerseys for the JR Fund. But they need to make a special 42 patch, every player wearing 42 during a game is stupid. Make the 42 jerseys & auction? sure, have th players line up at the start. But during the game, jersey w/42 patch.

Excellent Bluejay cap – logical too. Angels uni tweaks are primo! I still say change the Washington NFL team name to Skins. Those uni tweaks this week were all GREAT>

Chris Kite|
April 17, 2010 at 9:19 am |

Hey, Phil. I was just about to compliment you a great Saturday post. Then, you had to ruin it with that body shot at the end. It’s been almost 24 years, and the Sox have won two World Series since, but that game still turns my stomach.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 9:43 am |

[quote comment=”386020″]Hey, Phil. I was just about to compliment you a great Saturday post. Then, you had to ruin it with that body shot at the end. It’s been almost 24 years, and the Sox have won two World Series since, but that game still turns my stomach.[/quote]

I think his intentionally thinly veiled point was that the Mets unis had little to do with Buckner booting that one.

–Ricko

jesse|
April 17, 2010 at 9:55 am |

Good post. I’m not a huge fan of the Sox current roads, although I like the sleeve patch. Have always loved the Pats old unis, one of the best IMO. Ironically, I think the Sox changed their roads after that World Sries, or a season or 2 after.

DarkHorse Paul|
April 17, 2010 at 9:58 am |

A couple more examples of uni changes resulting in success, albeit limited. The Rangers went from blue to red in 1994 when the Ballpark opened, and were in 1st place at the time of the 1994 strike, then won the West 3 times in 4 years. Then they go back to blue when A-Hole showed up and nothing since. Then the Rays exorcised the Devil and were rewarded with two winnings seasons and the 2008 AL Championship. Maybe something is to this after all.

Matt Beahan|
April 17, 2010 at 10:00 am |

Regarding bad teams in great unis, I’d like to present for your consideration the Los Angeles Clippers. IMO, they have had some of the best unis in the NBA over the last 22 years – simple, clean, modern yet traditional. But the teams that wore them were some of the worst to ever grace the hardwood. Thus, as gorgeous as those uniforms are to me, I will always associate them with losing. Same with the original Minnesota Timberwolves unis.
There was a mini-trend in the NBA in the 90s where teams that went from traditional unis to modern, gaudy designs seemed to make the finals the same season (Sonics, Jazz, Lakers, the Rockets came close too)…

As a long suffering Bills fan, I can most certainly understand equating success and failure with the Uni set. The current abomination is a case in point. They have stunk for years and the blue pajama’s will forever be associated with losing. Same goes for the 70’s era White Jerseys – Blue Pants, charging Buffalo.

The only two Uni’s they have ever worn that are equated with winning, are the Classic AFL Cookie Gilchrist-Jack Kemp ones that they currently break out as a throwback, and the less aesthetically pleasing, but more succesful Jim Kelly-Thurman Thomas era. They actually went with the Red Hemlet – Royal Blue Jersey – White Pants in the mid 80’s, when they were at the bottom of their 2-14 seasons. But because of the glory years of 89-94 we will always equate that unis set with winning.

As much as I would love to see them go back to the 60’s AFL design full time immediately, I almost hope they wait until they are a better team lest those Uni’s become tainted with losing.

BuckeyeChief|
April 17, 2010 at 10:15 am |

Fellas,I wrote a 10 page essay on this same subject about 6-7 years ago as a college final. I’d be more than happy to share it if you wa t, just tell me how to post it and I will. I got a “A” on it btw.

Grilled Cheese|
April 17, 2010 at 10:20 am |

It doesn’t matter if you win or lose. It’s how you look doing it. Shit is shit.

Marty|
April 17, 2010 at 10:38 am |

[quote comment=”386027″]It doesn’t matter if you win or lose. It’s how you look doing it.[/quote]

The Uni Watcher’s Credo.

jess|
April 17, 2010 at 10:39 am |

Angels tweaks: I like the addition of yellow to the halo and socks, but not so much the piping.

Random question that I’m sure has been answered a million times: for guys that wear their socks up and pants right below the knees, do they need to wear special shorter pants to avoid the bunching that would happen with regular length pants?

I have many games, on DVD/VHS, with my Seahawks winning games and looking damned spectacular, uniwise, doing it. In fact, I just watched a 1978 game against the Bears, where the Seahawks pulled off the upset(31-29), @ Soldier Field. Simply, a great game to watch because it was exciting football, Seahawks won, and they looked amazing in those late 70s uniforms, Dungard masks etc.

Sometimes, the reflections of particular games, moments even, where my team looked good in a positive way is enough for me. Shit, even last season when they were, for the most part, horrible, I still thought those blue jerseys and darker navy blue pants were very cool. Hope they bring ’em back this year.

Nick Ruggeri|
April 17, 2010 at 10:47 am |

I agree that honoring Jackie Robinson should be continued, and I agree that perhaps, a patch on uni sleeves makes more sense. I would also like to add however, that as a life-long Cleveland Indians fan, I’m sorry to see that Larry Doby’s debut as the first black player in the American League is all but forgotten each year. Doby made his debut with Cleveland on July 5, 1947, a little over eight weeks after Robinson – one could argue that Jackie had to go it alone for only two months. I don’t think the fact that Jackie was the first made things any easier for Larry Doby, because Doby was going it alone in the American League. I would like to see MLB grant the Indians the option of adding a Number 14 patch to their uniforms every July 5 to honor Larry Doby, as well.

I was greatly disappointed in the new look when it was introduced in February 1997, but I said that I would buy a new-style jersey if the team won the big one that year. They did and I did. I still prefer all of the previous Bronco kits to the current one.

bill|
April 17, 2010 at 10:48 am |

Did the uni make them better and vice-versa is a no-brainer. Echoing the thoughts on the O’s cartoon bird. I refuse to wear anything with the “ornithologically correct” bird. I don’t let my kids wear it either. It’s the Angeloser bird. I don’t even want the current sad sack franchise to wear the old cartoon bird. They are nowhere near the requisite standards.

Ian|
April 17, 2010 at 10:49 am |

I like the Angels home tweeks but not the road. Navy blue is a symbol of them losing. Switching to all red has transformed them into the powerful winning franchise they are now.

everyone else wears red and blue, brown would set them apart. Plus that uni had some awesome stirrups.

Adam|
April 17, 2010 at 11:05 am |

I can’t say that I feel the connection between a winning uniform and a winning team. Mainly because:
A.) I’m a Colts fan, and the uniform has had very few changes through the years.
B.) I’m also a Cubs fan, so I’m unfamiliar with what it’s like to see a uniform have success.

Squiddie|
April 17, 2010 at 11:10 am |

I found this in a local baseball blog. Sooze! says her friend found this in Pro Shop at Target Field.

For me, as a New Englander, I never associated the red Pats uniform with losing, despite many losing teams playing in them. I also love the ‘new’ Red Sox away uniforms, because it reminds me of the old days. Not Buckner days, but Yaz and Teddy Ballgame days.

Same thing with my favorite team outside the border, the Montreal Expos. Pretty much all of their uniforms were fantastic, and I don’t associate them with losing whatsoever.

The Jeff|
April 17, 2010 at 11:44 am |

[quote comment=”386040″]For me, as a New Englander, I never associated the red Pats uniform with losing, despite many losing teams playing in them. I also love the ‘new’ Red Sox away uniforms, because it reminds me of the old days. Not Buckner days, but Yaz and Teddy Ballgame days.

Same thing with my favorite team outside the border, the Montreal Expos. Pretty much all of their uniforms were fantastic, and I don’t associate them with losing whatsoever.[/quote]

I think as a whole, the UniWatch community is a bad sample group to try to answer any questions about uniforms and win/loss associations. Generally, we’re in the small minority that can look at a uniform on it’s own and judge it without bias towards the team.

Jeremiah|
April 17, 2010 at 11:50 am |

[quote comment=”386034″]I like the Angels home tweeks but not the road. Navy blue is a symbol of them losing. Switching to all red has transformed them into the powerful winning franchise they are now.[/quote]

I was going to bring up the same thing. The Angels wore, IMO, one of their very best uni designs in the early- to mid-90’s. It was a great uniform that only needed a halo stitched into the crowns of the caps. However, most fans associate that uni with the great collapse of ’95. Too bad. It’s a great uni.

Granted, that last one was a one-game alternate, but it was an ugly uni set.

I like what they wear now.

concealed78|
April 17, 2010 at 12:04 pm |

I’d like to think my uni tastes are based on the look & not reflected on what happened in the field. If it’s classic looking & clean, it’ll stand the test of time. The 2005 White Sox may have won it all, but I’ve been sick to death of that uni since 1993. It’s just boring, bland, the roads are dated.

I can think of many looks, especially in the NFL that were superior to the crap we see today. Kill Flying Elvis! And I will never, ever like anything with the Fisherman Islanders uniforms. Generic, trendy and ugly to the nth.

concealed78|
April 17, 2010 at 12:25 pm |

[quote comment=”386016″]Another Pens example springs to mind- the mid 90’s logo. In my mind, it’s a far better designed logo- clean design, much more realistic penguin, overall great look. In the mind of Pens fans, it signifies the isles ending their chance of a 3 peat, with the new unis breaking their streak of cups. Now it’s the “pigeon”, even though it was much closer to a penguin then the skating penguin will ever be, and the far superior design.[/quote]

I always thought of it as a hummingbird logo, and a logo that has zero charm compared to the skating penguin. The gradient dark jersey was hideous & confirms gradients don’t belong on a uniform.

cityroute16|
April 17, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

KC Royals 1985 World Champions. Changed from pull-over to button up with royal blue numeral on front in 1983. George Brett goes berserk in “pine Tar” game. Royals win AL West in 1984. 1985 they comeback from 3-1 holes in ALCS and World Series.
Thanks Don Denkinger. Haven’t won since. they have made alot of changes since. guess it ain’t the unis.

concealed78|
April 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm |

[quote comment=”386029″]Angels tweaks: I like the addition of yellow to the halo and socks [/quote]

I like the addition of Athletic Yellow too. The Angels could had been baseball’s only red & yellow team, but probably only went with gray / silver to make it “just different enough” from their classic look. Damn them trendy modern metallic colors.

Oakville Endive|
April 17, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

[quote comment=”386016″]Another Pens example springs to mind- the mid 90’s logo. In my mind, it’s a far better designed logo- clean design, much more realistic penguin, overall great look. In the mind of Pens fans, it signifies the isles ending their chance of a 3 peat, with the new unis breaking their streak of cups. Now it’s the “pigeon”, even though it was much closer to a penguin then the skating penguin will ever be, and the far superior design.[/quote]

I remember hearing someone compare that logo to the Partridge family – and that always stuck with me. I’ve never understood championship teams changing their look. The St Louis Rams did it as well, getting rid of the athletic gold, and changing it to I guess Vegas gold?

The Expos racing strip uni, actually tied for best uni, in a players poll back in the early 80’s

concealed78|
April 17, 2010 at 12:37 pm |

[quote comment=”386045″]KC Royals 1985 World Champions. Changed from pull-over to button up with royal blue numeral on front in 1983. George Brett goes berserk in “pine Tar” game. Royals win AL West in 1984. 1985 they comeback from 3-1 holes in ALCS and World Series.
Thanks Don Denkinger. Haven’t won since. they have made alot of changes since. guess it ain’t the unis.[/quote]

I always wondered what would have happened in the Royals in the 1990s had Bo Jackson’s large ego hadn’t prevented him from shattering his hip on the Raiders. Tho it probably sped up the inevitable.

concealed78|
April 17, 2010 at 12:41 pm |

[quote comment=”386047″][quote comment=”386016″]Another Pens example springs to mind- the mid 90’s logo. In my mind, it’s a far better designed logo- clean design, much more realistic penguin, overall great look. In the mind of Pens fans, it signifies the isles ending their chance of a 3 peat, with the new unis breaking their streak of cups. Now it’s the “pigeon”, even though it was much closer to a penguin then the skating penguin will ever be, and the far superior design.[/quote]

I remember hearing someone compare that logo to the Partridge family – and that always stuck with me. I’ve never understood championship teams changing their look. The St Louis Rams did it as well, getting rid of the athletic gold, and changing it to I guess Vegas gold? [/quote]

It was change for the sake of change, to look tougher & to modernize the look, & re-brand the team’s logos & sell new St. Louis Rams gear of course.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm |

’87 Twins.
Ditched the sansabelts, pullovers, red hat and powder blues. Returned to pins, belts and buttons, brought back the navy hat and gray roads.
Won the World Series.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 12:44 pm |

Let’s not forget the Tampa Bay Rays, either.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 12:47 pm |

[quote comment=”386046″][quote comment=”386029″]Angels tweaks: I like the addition of yellow to the halo and socks [/quote]

I like the addition of Athletic Yellow too. The Angels could had been baseball’s only red & yellow team, but probably only went with gray / silver to make it “just different enough” from their classic look. Damn them trendy modern metallic colors.[/quote]

What I like is…how many illustrations have we ever seen of angels (heavenly winged variety) where the halos are silver? Pretty much always gold, aren’t they?

everyone else wears red and blue, brown would set them apart. Plus that uni had some awesome stirrups.[/quote]
Great topic for today, one I will probably spend hours mulling over. Although I grew up a Mets fan, the Padres became a second favorite as soon as they came along in ’69, in good part because of their distinct unis. I followed them through all of their crazy brown/gold/orange permutations, and I think it’s no coincidence that my rooting interest waned when they ditched those colors.

Yeah, I followed the Mets on their ’86 run but those unis made it damn hard to do so.

I was a fan of the Twins’ new unis in ’87, long before they made it to the series. I could not stomach those ’80’s pullovers.

-Jet

jbird|
April 17, 2010 at 12:58 pm |

what about the Braves? 13 straight Division Titles, and 5 World Series appearances wearing a simple, and in my opinion quite beautiful home and road set, then with the influx of alternates, success dropped off. Coincidence maybe, but i’ve seen no good associated with the Sunday reds or the road alternate

Chris Kite|
April 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm |

[quote comment=”386021″][quote comment=”386020″]Hey, Phil. I was just about to compliment you a great Saturday post. Then, you had to ruin it with that body shot at the end. It’s been almost 24 years, and the Sox have won two World Series since, but that game still turns my stomach.[/quote]

I think his intentionally thinly veiled point was that the Mets unis had little to do with Buckner booting that one.

–Ricko[/quote]
I understand what you are saying, Rick. The thing that upsets me the most is how people look back and say, “Stapleton should have been in the game and it’s all Buckner’s fautlt.” Even with Stapleton in the game, the best the Sox could have done was tied, going into the 11th with who pitching? Nipper? Boyd? Sambito? Crawford? Once Schiraldi had that “deer in the headlights” look, the Sox were done…

Are not the Twins uniforms of this year closely similar to the ones they wore in 1965, 1969 and 1970 when they won an AL Pennant, and back to back division titles? I don’t see how that is a uniform associated with losing then.

As a byproduct of them being in the old NFC Central (for God knows what reason) I know several people who are Bucs fans. Personally I find their original unis rather endearing, but Bucs fans DISPISE those unis.

It could be that the team was so ungodly horrible during that period that they don’t want to relive it. It also could be that they saw almost immediate success upon the introduction of their new/current look.

But I always thought they were a prime example of this sort of thing.

You also have to question Denver as well. For so long they had a killer look, but when they switched to the current duds they rattled off two straight Super Bowl wins.

Now would the fans prefer the classic look or the look that finally granted them salvation after years of frustration?

THAT is a good question in my opinion.

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

[quote comment=”386020″]Hey, Phil. I was just about to compliment you a great Saturday post. Then, you had to ruin it with that body shot at the end. It’s been almost 24 years, and the Sox have won two World Series since, but that game still turns my stomach.[/quote]

my point with the quote wasn’t to bring back any bad memories for sox fans (no, seriously)…but to kind tie in the whole main article — most mets fans, myself being probably in the minority that hate it, remember that awful gaudy racing striped monstrosity quite fondly, as those were the years they RULED the city…but really, that was just a shit uni…red sox fans, otoh…aren’t so fond of that uni (and particularly shots of billy buck) because of that one awful inning — by all rights, the sox should have won the ’86 world series

but i thought that 86 (obviously they wore it more than one season) sox uni was quite nice, but the negative connotations associated with it will forever cloud sox fans minds, while the 86 mets uni will be viewed much more positively because of the results achieved while wearing it

/sorry if you took it the wrong way; wasn’t my intent…just thought it was a perfect example of the gist of today’s post

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

[quote comment=”386056″]Are not the Twins uniforms of this year closely similar to the ones they wore in 1965, 1969 and 1970 when they won an AL Pennant, and back to back division titles? I don’t see how that is a uniform associated with losing then.[/quote]

Not the uni we’re talking about. Talking about the doubleknits…powder blue roads, etc., that were worn by the most woeful of Twins teams (Willie Norwood, anyone?). Don’t think anyone said the original pins were associated with losing. If they did, they were terribly mistaken.

Twins in cream today, btw. Royals in royal blue jerseys. Great day. High sky. Good baseball weather, certainly for April.

Ricko, what I was referring to was this statement about the new Twins unis:

“some of the first complaints about the new uniforms were “those look like the one we wore when were bad” (or words to that effect, cleaned up for this family blog).”

Maybe I misunderstood that but I took that to referring to this years look as being associated with losing.

In any case, I wanted to ad that I agree with the comments about the old Orioles caps with the cartoon birds, not the later ones that had the white panels in front, but the ones that were all black with the orange bill, those were classic caps in my opinion.

Story of Pete Gray. Unis, including the Memphis Chicks, are really accurate. Carradine wears a cool Browns hero jacket in a number of scenes, too.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

[quote comment=”386061″]Ricko, what I was referring to was this statement about the new Twins unis:

“some of the first complaints about the new uniforms were “those look like the one we wore when were bad” (or words to that effect, cleaned up for this family blog).”

Maybe I misunderstood that but I took that to referring to this years look as being associated with losing.

In any case, I wanted to ad that I agree with the comments about the old Orioles caps with the cartoon birds, not the later ones that had the white panels in front, but the ones that were all black with the orange bill, those were classic caps in my opinion.[/quote]

Yeah, my bad. Honestly, for some reason I’d missed that entire paragraph (duh). We ended up harmonizing, though, because anyone who’d associate the new road look with losing is nuts.

a) They didn’t lose when they wore gray.
b) The new road look, with all that multi-colored sleeve, neck and pant trim on a gray belted-pant and button-front jersey uni is a first for the entire franchise, including years in Washington, I’m pretty sure.

So it doesn’t look quite like ANYTHING they’ve ever worn.

(Thome just hit one over the evergreens in CF, btw)

—Ricko

pflava|
April 17, 2010 at 1:46 pm |

Outstanding job today, Phil! So many great uniforms in the links (along with the awful ones).

I was saying here recently that most teams at one point or another end up with a beautiful uniform, but unfortunately for various reasons (rea$on$) end up changing. The trend of overhauling a losing franchise’s uniforms for a “fresh start” has been killing good uniforms for years now.

As for winning/losing in a particular uniform – it’s too bad most fans are fickle about that. In many cases, the uniform is the ONLY thing a losing franchise gets right (see: Raiders, Oakland).

[quote comment=”386064″]Outstanding job today, Phil! So many great uniforms in the links (along with the awful ones).

I was saying here recently that most teams at one point or another end up with a beautiful uniform, but unfortunately for various reasons (rea$on$) end up changing. The trend of overhauling a losing franchise’s uniforms for a “fresh start” has been killing good uniforms for years now.

As for winning/losing in a particular uniform – it’s too bad most fans are fickle about that. In many cases, the uniform is the ONLY thing a losing franchise gets right (see: Raiders, Oakland).[/quote]

Got that right. Franchise is a horrible mess right now, but one of the four or five truly iconic unis in the NFL.

—Ricko

random reader|
April 17, 2010 at 1:58 pm |

LI Phil:

Just wanted to compliment you for an awesome post today. It brings up a lot of good points and I agree a lot of people do associate a particular uniform with winning and losing.

Your point about the Islanders literally made me nod my head with agreement. I’m glad the team will return to the solid blue uniforms from their Cup winning teams. I never liked the orange sleeves and ridiculous speed lines and piping the Islanders added when they switched to the Rbk Edge uniform.

Oakville Endive|
April 17, 2010 at 1:59 pm |

[quote comment=”386066″][quote comment=”386064″]Outstanding job today, Phil! So many great uniforms in the links (along with the awful ones).

I was saying here recently that most teams at one point or another end up with a beautiful uniform, but unfortunately for various reasons (rea$on$) end up changing. The trend of overhauling a losing franchise’s uniforms for a “fresh start” has been killing good uniforms for years now.

As for winning/losing in a particular uniform – it’s too bad most fans are fickle about that. In many cases, the uniform is the ONLY thing a losing franchise gets right (see: Raiders, Oakland).[/quote]

Got that right. Franchise is a horrible mess right now, but one of the four or five truly iconic unis in the NFL.

—Ricko[/quote]
Ah now let’s see – what other unis would fit the iconic tab – Green Bay and Chicago for sure, probably Indianpolis, I would disqualify the NY Giants for changing too much – so what could that 4th iconic be ?………off course the all black Cinnicinatti Bengals unis. The uni that should , but wouldn’t be considered is the KC Chiefs.

First, the Brewers are a classic case of fans associating a particular look with an era of success. The 1982 Brewers stand way out from the rest of the franchise’s teams as easily the most successful Brewers squad ever. That, combined with the love Brewers fans had for that particular team (the personalities, the character, the overall atmosphere of that year’s World Series run), has created a great fondness for that particular uniform set.

It’s the reason the MB ball-and-glove logo seems more popular in the state than the current logo (heck, Wisconsin just issued Brewers license plates, and residents can choose between one with the current logo & color scheme and one with the MB ball-and-glove logo & color scheme…I wonder which will end up on more vehicles). It’s the reason the Brewers still have a retro uniform based on the ’82 look, why fans still wear the powder blue roads jersey & blue/gold road cap from that era. It’s also the reason you almost never see their looks from the ’70s (ie. no home pinstripes, block lettering on the roads), late ’80s (grey roads), early ’90s (ie. script at home) or rest of the ’90s (the Notre Dame-ish look). None of those teams had nearly the success or the fondness of the 1982 team…or, for that matter, the ’78 squad that first brought a taste of success to Milwaukee, or the ’81 team that first made the playoffs. All of those teams, plus Robin Yount, Paul Molitor & Jim Gantner at their primes played while that particular look was used (1978-85).

Say what you will about the merits of that uniform set, but Brewer fans associate that look with success and fondness. That’s why we still see echoes of it today in the stands and throwback unis.

The Twins. Yes, ’87 introduced a new uniform and a WS Championship, but it wasn’t the uniforms.

The polyester pullovers from the ’70’s, early ’80’s? Here’s a little secret: I loved them. They were hip and modern and colorful and I wanted my team to look cool like every other team. The Twins…how do I say this?…well, they sucked, terribly, while wearing those, but Minnesota kept up with the Jones’ for once and I was glad (though the red hat and white paneled helmet were unfortunate misplays).

When they switched to the new unis in ’87 they blew it. That clunky, dated-the-day-it-was-drawn font (which recently underwent the smallest of tweaks), that insipid, lifeless sleeve “logo,” and the odd choice to put pinstripes on the road uniform, and finally the biggest mistake–dropping the TC in favor of that forgettable M on the hat. The only thing they got right was the MINNESOTA font on the road.

No one was happier when the Twins won those championships, but those uniforms distracted from the pleasure.

Oakville Endive|
April 17, 2010 at 2:14 pm |

[quote comment=”386070″][quote comment=”386068″]so what could that 4th iconic be?[/quote]

stillers (maybe)…or cowboys (possibly)[/quote]

I would go Cowboys (I simply forgot them on my initial post) Steelers I thought about – in a way yes, that distinctive thick stripe on their pants – the dull mated finish on their helmet – but they tweaked their uni a lot in the early going.

dilbert719|
April 17, 2010 at 2:15 pm |

Another example of a team retiring a uniform component because of no success: the Phillies ’94 Sunday hat.

The hat looked pretty nice, but they were utterly devoid of success wearing them, and the players voted them off the island about a month and a half into the season.

hofflalu|
April 17, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

Second, as a Twins fan, I associated their previous road unis (the pinstripes of 1987-2009) with losing. Why? Since they lost every road World Series game played in that uniform set, and because I believe they were clearly a better home than road team during that era. I seem to recall the Twins playing not so well on the road during overall while wearing the pinstripes — watching the Twins on the road over the last 2-plus decades, I felt the Twins were a little shakier than at home, and, of course, they’d always be wearing the grey/pinstriped look.

I’ll bet the stats don’t back up this perception — heck, the Twins did clinch the ’87 AL West, the ’87 AL pennant, the ’91 AL pennant, the ’02 ALDS over the A’s, and some other division titles on the road. But again, it’s my *perception* that the Twins played poorly in the grey pinstriped uniform that matters.

JimV19|
April 17, 2010 at 2:18 pm |

[quote comment=”386070″][quote comment=”386068″]so what could that 4th iconic be?[/quote]

[quote comment=”386070″][quote comment=”386068″]so what could that 4th iconic be?[/quote]

stillers (maybe)…or cowboys (possibly)[/quote]

Browns, without the turd pants. I didn’t take a precise count (why I said “four or five”, but I’d say them and the Steelers, Raiders, Cowboys, Packers, Bears and Colts. Been some noodling on all of them, of course, but those are essentially variations on a theme or temporary losses of reason (blue pants on Colts, for ex.). Conceivably could put the Dolphins in there, too, depends on how far afield you consider the aqua pants to be. Chiefs, too, I guess, but that would be more for not changing than for any periods of sustained success in the unis.

—Ricko

Oakville Endive|
April 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm |

[quote comment=”386076″][quote comment=”386070″][quote comment=”386068″]so what could that 4th iconic be?[/quote]

Is that the old SI poster of Dan Pastorini ? – I had it as a kid, Pastorini, along with Ken Anderson , and I think one other, the Pastorini pick was a pure uni motivated selection

steve|
April 17, 2010 at 2:22 pm |

Regarding the Browns socks. I have no idea how to take a screen grab off of a DVD, but there are shots throughout my WIWAG shows, and Baseball Golden Age shows. If anyone has the DVD’s of Golden Age, episode 4 has a section on the Browns.

Jim BC|
April 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm |

Phil – great Saturday post as usual. I do however have to disagree with you regarding the Twins road unis.
As you know, I am a hockey fan and therefore, much to the chagrin of my lovely wife, I have several hockey jerseys hanging up on my side of the closet. In amongst that collection of fantastic 100% polyester is my 1992 Twins Kirby Puckett jersey. I love it. I love the pinstripes. It’s a thing of beauty.

My point is that, now, without the pinstripes, the away uni is just ordinary. Mind you, it’s far better than the baby blue days but still. Again, I’m no baseball fanatic, however I wonder why they would lose the pinstripes. They look too bland, like say:

[quote comment=\”386075\”]Second, as a Twins fan, I associated their previous road unis (the pinstripes of 1987-2009) with losing. Why? Since they lost every road World Series game played in that uniform set, and because I believe they were clearly a better home than road team during that era. [/quote]

Yep, the Twins had the good fortune of home field advantage for both the \’87 and \’91 World Series, losing every road game in both. The Metrodome was the MVP in both of those.

mmwatkin|
April 17, 2010 at 3:08 pm |

[quote comment=”386081″]Morneau triples off CF wall. First triple at Target Field (all of sudden today ball is carrying to CF; ah, the joys of discovering a new ballpark).

Trivia Question on today’s Twins telecast:
Who was last player to win AL MVP in consecutive seasons?

—Ricko[/quote]

David Dejesus disagrees with your first statement.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

[quote comment=”386088″][quote comment=\”386075\”]Second, as a Twins fan, I associated their previous road unis (the pinstripes of 1987-2009) with losing. Why? Since they lost every road World Series game played in that uniform set, and because I believe they were clearly a better home than road team during that era. [/quote]

Yep, the Twins had the good fortune of home field advantage for both the \’87 and \’91 World Series, losing every road game in both. The Metrodome was the MVP in both of those.[/quote]

Not sure we’re splitting the partidular hairs between home and roads in this discussion; is more about the “sets” or the “look” from year to year.

And, yeah, Twins were better at home than on the road during those years. They were a bit above the norm, sure, but teams having better nome records…in just about any sport that plays more than once a week…over any period of time isn’t all that unusual.

Doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply in football, of course. Lambeau Field certainly has served the Packers well, and the the LA Rams couldn’t win at old Met Stadium after Nov. 1 if their kids’ lives depended on it. Such instances always are going to be, barring neutral sites for everything, part of the game.

And it doesn’t matter how much you lose on the road. A winning season is a winning season. No one starts dragging out asterisks.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 3:13 pm |

[quote comment=”386089″][quote comment=”386081″]Morneau triples off CF wall. First triple at Target Field (all of sudden today ball is carrying to CF; ah, the joys of discovering a new ballpark).

Trivia Question on today’s Twins telecast:
Who was last player to win AL MVP in consecutive seasons?

—Ricko[/quote]

David Dejesus disagrees with your first statement.[/quote]

Hey, the wind can change. ;)

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 3:15 pm |

[quote comment=”386087″]So is it safe to say Paul will be in love with the new Tampa Bay Rowdies once he sees them in action?

[quote comment=”386090″][quote comment=”386088″][quote comment=\”386075\”]Second, as a Twins fan, I associated their previous road unis (the pinstripes of 1987-2009) with losing. Why? Since they lost every road World Series game played in that uniform set, and because I believe they were clearly a better home than road team during that era. [/quote]

Yep, the Twins had the good fortune of home field advantage for both the \’87 and \’91 World Series, losing every road game in both. The Metrodome was the MVP in both of those.[/quote]

Not sure we’re splitting the partidular hairs between home and roads in this discussion; is more about the “sets” or the “look” from year to year.

And, yeah, Twins were better at home than on the road during those years. They were a bit above the norm, sure, but teams having better nome records…in just about any sport that plays more than once a week…over any period of time isn’t all that unusual.

Doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply in football, of course. Lambeau Field certainly has served the Packers well, and the the LA Rams couldn’t win at old Met Stadium after Nov. 1 if their kids’ lives depended on it. Such instances always are going to be, barring neutral sites for everything, part of the game.

And it doesn’t matter how much you lose on the road. A winning season is a winning season. No one starts dragging out asterisks.

—Ricko[/quote]

Actually my response there had nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with being a bitter Braves fan :)

JTH|
April 17, 2010 at 3:24 pm |

[quote comment=”386086″][quote comment=”386084″][quote comment=”386081″]Trivia Question on today’s Twins telecast:
Who was last player to win AL MVP in consecutive seasons?
[/quote]

joe mauer

2009-10[/quote]

I believe they meant not by acclamation a priori.[/quote]
Frank Thomas?

BuckeyeChief|
April 17, 2010 at 3:29 pm |

LI Phil it’s 10 pages. I don’t know how you want it posted/ linked.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 3:30 pm |

[quote comment=”386093″][quote comment=”386090″][quote comment=”386088″][quote comment=\”386075\”]Second, as a Twins fan, I associated their previous road unis (the pinstripes of 1987-2009) with losing. Why? Since they lost every road World Series game played in that uniform set, and because I believe they were clearly a better home than road team during that era. [/quote]

Yep, the Twins had the good fortune of home field advantage for both the \’87 and \’91 World Series, losing every road game in both. The Metrodome was the MVP in both of those.[/quote]

Not sure we’re splitting the partidular hairs between home and roads in this discussion; is more about the “sets” or the “look” from year to year.

And, yeah, Twins were better at home than on the road during those years. They were a bit above the norm, sure, but teams having better nome records…in just about any sport that plays more than once a week…over any period of time isn’t all that unusual.

Doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply in football, of course. Lambeau Field certainly has served the Packers well, and the the LA Rams couldn’t win at old Met Stadium after Nov. 1 if their kids’ lives depended on it. Such instances always are going to be, barring neutral sites for everything, part of the game.

And it doesn’t matter how much you lose on the road. A winning season is a winning season. No one starts dragging out asterisks.

—Ricko[/quote]

Actually my response there had nothing to do with uniforms and everything to do with being a bitter Braves fan :)[/quote]

Yeah, there’s a lot of that still going around. Similar residual feeling in St. Louis, too, I imagine.

But, hey, that problem’s been solved by making the All-Star Game mean something.

Whew, huh.

—Ricko

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm |

[quote comment=”386094″][quote comment=”386086″][quote comment=”386084″][quote comment=”386081″]Trivia Question on today’s Twins telecast:
Who was last player to win AL MVP in consecutive seasons?
[/quote]

joe mauer

2009-10[/quote]

I believe they meant not by acclamation a priori.[/quote]
Frank Thomas?[/quote]

Give the man a cee-gar.

JTH|
April 17, 2010 at 3:32 pm |

[quote comment=”386074″]Another example of a team retiring a uniform component because of no success: the Phillies ’94 Sunday hat.

The hat looked pretty nice, but they were utterly devoid of success wearing them, and the players voted them off the island about a month and a half into the season.[/quote]
Yes, it looked nice — but not within the context of the uniform. Red pinstripes looked ridiculous paired with a blue cap.

Win or lose, those caps were doomed from the get-go. The players hated them. I remember reading a blurb in the paper after the first time they were worn. Players were griping about them in a big way. There were lots of “looks like we got dressed in the dark” type comments.

JTH|
April 17, 2010 at 3:37 pm |

[quote comment=”386097″][quote comment=”386094″][quote comment=”386086″][quote comment=”386084″][quote comment=”386081″]Trivia Question on today’s Twins telecast:
Who was last player to win AL MVP in consecutive seasons?
[/quote]

joe mauer

2009-10[/quote]

I believe they meant not by acclamation a priori.[/quote]
Frank Thomas?[/quote]

Give the man a cee-gar.[/quote]
A friend of mine had a great trivia question and I’ve been meaning to verify its accuracy for about 20 years and I’ve never gotten around to it (obviously, this is pre Bonds/Thomas).

Here ’tis:

9 players have won back-to-back MVPs, a pitcher, a catcher, first baseman, second baseman, shortstop, third baseman and three outfielders. Can you name them?

The Mets’ racing stripes are awesome. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

jesse|
April 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm |

FWIW, was listening to the Nats game on the radio while doin my “honeydos”, Nats will be in red alts for Thurs-Sun homegames.

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 3:50 pm |

[quote comment=”386086″][quote comment=”386084″][quote comment=”386081″]Trivia Question on today’s Twins telecast:
Who was last player to win AL MVP in consecutive seasons?
[/quote]

joe mauer

2009-10[/quote]

I believe they meant not by acclamation a priori.[/quote]

well played, ricko…well played

Jet|
April 17, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

[quote comment=”386100″]The Mets’ racing stripes are awesome. You don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]
Well some of the road unis from that era were awful. The script “New York” of the 1987 road…the Yankee-style block “New York” of ’88 thru ’92… the script plus swash of ’93 and ’94 in both road AND home… yuck.

you know what? can you send it to me? or do you know how to “post” it via google docs?

unfortunately, im semi-swamped today, and i don’t have MS word on the home PC — but i do at the office; if you can send me the document, i’ll try to get it linked (might not be till next weekend tho)

thanks!

concealed78|
April 17, 2010 at 4:12 pm |

What the hell.. what’s with these beige caps the Indians are wearing?? I don’t recall reading about those!

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

reason # 1 why tim mccarver’s time is past:

he just said “mets starter carlos santana” on the fox feed…

Jeremiah|
April 17, 2010 at 4:16 pm |

[quote comment=”386024″]Regarding bad teams in great unis, I’d like to present for your consideration the Los Angeles Clippers. IMO, they have had some of the best unis in the NBA over the last 22 years – simple, clean, modern yet traditional. But the teams that wore them were some of the worst to ever grace the hardwood. Thus, as gorgeous as those uniforms are to me, I will always associate them with losing. Same with the original Minnesota Timberwolves unis.
There was a mini-trend in the NBA in the 90s where teams that went from traditional unis to modern, gaudy designs seemed to make the finals the same season (Sonics, Jazz, Lakers, the Rockets came close too)…[/quote]

I’d have to agree on the Clips’ uniforms. I thought they were always one of the nicest lookig sets in the league. Growing up in LA, I got to see too many telecasts of Clippers’ games on TV. At least they looked good. Being a Lakers fan my whole life, I never really had a problem with the Clips losing, though :-).

Speaking of which, what gaudy Lakers designs from the 90’s are you referring to? I’m genuinely curious. I can’t recall any oturageous uni elements from them ever, really.

Not that I recall, and I’ve been a lifelong White Sox fan. By 1981, the Veeck-introduced collared jersey that the White Sox wore was made of a mesh material similar to football jerseys of the time, and the color of the away jersey was a lighter shade of blue (similar to what the Indians and Brewers wear these days, as opposed to the darker navy blue that the rest of the league wears).

I believe they meant not by acclamation a priori.[/quote]
Frank Thomas?[/quote]

Give the man a cee-gar.[/quote]
A friend of mine had a great trivia question and I’ve been meaning to verify its accuracy for about 20 years and I’ve never gotten around to it (obviously, this is pre Bonds/Thomas).

Not that I recall, and I’ve been a lifelong White Sox fan. By 1981, the Veeck-introduced collared jersey that the White Sox wore was made of a mesh material similar to football jerseys of the time, and the color of the away jersey was a lighter shade of blue (similar to what the Indians and Brewers wear these days, as opposed to the darker navy blue that the rest of the league wears).[/quote]

Well I’m going by Topps baseball cards including Chris Knapp’s 1978 Topps, Internet auctions & MLB Game Worn Jersey of the Double Knit Era, including 2 pages that have been posted here on Uni Watch over the years. Apparently the Sox have been wearing mesh jerseys since 1972:

It’s not a specific uniform, but the Tigers replaced the circle logo with the Tiger-jumping-through-the-D. I think it’s a pretty cool logo, but they adopted it in 1994 and went on to have 12 losing seasons in a row with it, so it is associated by Tiger fans with losing. As a result I think, the Tigers have de-emphasized it in recent years.

But a hell of a lot closer than the wretched fisherman // sea sick or RBK swift uni bullshit.

(2) – Of all the uni tweak efforts, I have yet to see anyone come close to improving on the NFL Washingtons’ existing unis. Fix the name, focus your energies on the logo, but nobody’s been able to touch the unis.

the fact that we are talking about it (as well as numerous people on letsgotribe.com) answers that question.

Clay Cartwright|
April 17, 2010 at 6:26 pm |

Houston Rockets’ fans are drawn to the red, yellow & white unis of that team because that’s what the team wore during all four Finals appearances (and of course two championships). They changed to the dreaded pajama unis in ’96 that began a downward spiral of falling short of expectations. The newest uni set is a definite improvement and a nod to the championship era unis, but they lack the yellow. When they wear the alternate that has the yellow — its like going back home.

As for the L.A. Kings, ANYTHING would be better for me than those eyesores they’ve been wearing the past few years (OK, except the Burger King fiasco).

Giancarlo|
April 17, 2010 at 6:42 pm |

It’s funny how when you’re not a fan of a team, you have a different set of associations attached to old uniforms, frequently more positive ones. When I think of the Twins’ powder blues I don’t think “losers,” I picture Rod Carew, one of the most dominant players of the ’70s era. The Patriots’ scarlet tops don’t make me think of failure, but rather of a team that was a contender almost every season from 1976 to 1988. And so on.

[quote comment=”386132″]It’s funny how when you’re not a fan of a team, you have a different set of associations attached to old uniforms, frequently more positive ones. When I think of the Twins’ powder blues I don’t think “losers,” I picture Rod Carew, one of the most dominant players of the ’70s era. The Patriots’ scarlet tops don’t make me think of failure, but rather of a team that was a contender almost every season from 1976 to 1988. And so on.[/quote]

True about Carew. And I loved watching the guy play ball. But the truth is, around here those were teams we used to call “Rod Carew and Eight Guys Named Steve.” Steve Brye, Steve Braun, Steve Luebber, Steve Comer…

A few pretty good and memorable players in there, sure (Mike Marshall out of the bullpen, Butch Wynegar, Lyman Bostock and Ken Landreaux, for whom Carew was traded, come quickly to mind), but bad teams. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad.

—Ricko

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 7:03 pm |

[quote comment=”386134″]
A few pretty good and memorable players in there, sure (Mike Marshall out of the bullpen, Butch Wynegar, Lyman Bostock and Ken Landreaux, for whom Carew was traded, come quickly to mind), but bad teams. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad.[/quote]

oh shoot…forgot about bostock

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm |

[quote comment=”386127″][quote comment=”386122″][quote comment=\”386121\”]I think the Indians\’ hats have something to do with this:

the fact that we are talking about it (as well as numerous people on letsgotribe.com) answers that question.[/quote]

Oh, THAT’s what they are. I thought maybe the day after Earth Day was Dirt Day.

Chris Kite|
April 17, 2010 at 7:09 pm |

[quote comment=”386058″][quote comment=”386020″]Hey, Phil. I was just about to compliment you a great Saturday post. Then, you had to ruin it with that body shot at the end. It’s been almost 24 years, and the Sox have won two World Series since, but that game still turns my stomach.[/quote]

my point with the quote wasn’t to bring back any bad memories for sox fans (no, seriously)…but to kind tie in the whole main article — most mets fans, myself being probably in the minority that hate it, remember that awful gaudy racing striped monstrosity quite fondly, as those were the years they RULED the city…but really, that was just a shit uni…red sox fans, otoh…aren’t so fond of that uni (and particularly shots of billy buck) because of that one awful inning — by all rights, the sox should have won the ’86 world series

but i thought that 86 (obviously they wore it more than one season) sox uni was quite nice, but the negative connotations associated with it will forever cloud sox fans minds, while the 86 mets uni will be viewed much more positively because of the results achieved while wearing it

/sorry if you took it the wrong way; wasn’t my intent…just thought it was a perfect example of the gist of today’s post[/quote]
Phil, there is no apology necessary. I guess my attempt at humor went over like a lead balloon. You always do a fantastic job on the weekends. And your premise is absolutely true. I always hated the Red Sox road unis from that era (even before the WS)because I thought they looked like Yankee road unis. Keep up the great work. I always look forward to the weekends when I can enjoy my coffee and read the site. All the best.

Ryan B|
April 17, 2010 at 7:13 pm |

Notes from Fenway tonight:

Completion of suspended game from yesterday is first on the docket. Sox wearing the red alts. The Rays have elected to change to their normal road jerseys instead of the Robinson versions they wore last night.

I’ll update the second game once it starts.

Giancarlo|
April 17, 2010 at 7:21 pm |

Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets & have been getting it wrong ever since.

[quote comment=”386045″]KC Royals 1985 World Champions. Changed from pull-over to button up with royal blue numeral on front in 1983. George Brett goes berserk in “pine Tar” game. Royals win AL West in 1984. 1985 they comeback from 3-1 holes in ALCS and World Series.
Thanks Don Denkinger. Haven’t won since. they have made alot of changes since. guess it ain’t the unis.[/quote]

I’m a KC A’s fan-turned-KC Royals fan. Watched that ’85 series in Cubs-Cardinals country and was happy as heck with Denkinger’s blown call. But I’m thinking we’re paying penance for that call ever since. Karma does exist, you know.

Also, those old Red Sox uniforms were perfection. The home whites had just enough fancy and just enough simplicity. Lettering was perfect, piping was perfect, number font was perfect. The road uniforms offered a nice contrast: fancy B on the hat, those awesome patriot stirrups and absolute simplicity in between. Much prefer the sans-serif BOSTON to the fancy type.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 7:39 pm |

Watching BANG THE DRUM SLOWLY on TCM. Game footage from Yankees’ time at Shea. So far have seen, among others, Orioles, Dick Allen ground out to short in powder and red ChiSox, gold vest A’s, vested Pirates (yes, Pirates; hey, it’s a movie)…

Danny Aiello, of all people, had a pretty good swing. Actually stays back, unlike like most actors in baseball movies.

Hey, Phil, there’s a decent weekend column: Best dressed fictional movie teams. Or has that been done?

Let’s see, we got lots of choices: NY Knights, North Dallas Bulls, MYSTERY, ALASKA, Charlestown Chiefs, Hickory, the team from SCHOOL TIES…

—Ricko

Giancarlo|
April 17, 2010 at 7:43 pm |

[quote comment=”386141″]
Hey, Phil, there’s a decent weekend column: Best dressed fictional movie teams. Or has that been done?
—Ricko[/quote]
Gotta be Houston in the original Rollerball.

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 7:47 pm |

[quote comment=”386139″]Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets & have been getting it wrong ever since.

[quote comment=”386139″]Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets and have been getting it wrong ever since

…Saints…[/quote]

Yep.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 7:52 pm |

[quote comment=”386142″][quote comment=”386141″]
Hey, Phil, there’s a decent weekend column: Best dressed fictional movie teams. Or has that been done?
—Ricko[/quote]
Gotta be Houston in the original Rollerball.[/quote]

You’re kidding, right? Those things looked like they were designed by someone who’d never even SEEN a rollerball match.

jesse|
April 17, 2010 at 7:54 pm |

[quote comment=”386139″]Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets & have been getting it wrong ever since.

Completion of suspended game from yesterday is first on the docket. Sox wearing the red alts. The Rays have elected to change to their normal road jerseys instead of the Robinson versions they wore last night.

I’ll update the second game once it starts.[/quote]
Sox should be in home whites, there was someting in today’s Globe that said ” red tops, then white tops”, or something to that effect.

Jeff|
April 17, 2010 at 7:58 pm |

On a slide into second, Hanley Ramirez of the Marlins just tore a big hole in his pants.

Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?

Skycat|
April 17, 2010 at 8:02 pm |

[quote comment=”386139″]Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets & have been getting it wrong ever since.

Mets, Padres, Brewers (imo), Astros (possibly), Saints, Seahawks (probably), Falcons…[/quote]
Definitely worthy of discussion. One team that immediately comes to mind is the Phoenix Suns. While the original unis were no great shakes, they were at least acceptable. I really don’t have a problem with the Barkley era jerseys either. The current sets, however, should be eclipsed. Terrible use of piping.http://phoenix.fanster.com/phoenix-suns-uniform-history/

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 8:07 pm |

[quote comment=”386147″][quote comment=”386139″]Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets & have been getting it wrong ever since.

[quote comment=”386152″]Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?[/quote]
One that comes to mind is the infamous all-purple Vikings game in the ’60s, which Ricko probably knows the details of… the Vikes changed at halftime I believe.

[quote comment=”386155″][quote comment=”386152″]Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?[/quote]
One that comes to mind is the infamous all-purple Vikings game in the ’60s, which Ricko probably knows the details of… the Vikes changed at halftime I believe.[/quote]
Finding documentation is a bitch, but I swear I saw a Canadiens vs NY Rangers red vs blue game, where the Habs has to switch from blue helmets to white to increase the contrast.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 8:20 pm |

[quote comment=”386155″][quote comment=”386152″]Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?[/quote]
One that comes to mind is the infamous all-purple Vikings game in the ’60s, which Ricko probably knows the details of… the Vikes changed at halftime I believe.[/quote]

Phil, I believe, has lots of screen grabs. From LarryB, maybe?

NFL had given teams choice of white or dark at home. For the season, not game by game. Lions missed that Vikes had opted for white, showed up at Met Stadium in their whites. Vikings staffers hustled over to St. Paul’s Midway Stadium (where Vikings practiced back then) to pick up the purple jerseys. Got back with them around halftime, yes. One and only time in that era when Vikings went monochrome purple.

let me know if you guys can hear that…k?[/quote]
Works.
Mac users like myself: that’s a WMA, so open with QuickTime. Don’t try to save it because WMA is a Windows Media Player proprietary file type. Won’t work.

[quote comment=”386159″][quote comment=”386155″][quote comment=”386152″]Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?[/quote]
One that comes to mind is the infamous all-purple Vikings game in the ’60s, which Ricko probably knows the details of… the Vikes changed at halftime I believe.[/quote]
Finding documentation is a bitch, but I swear I saw a Canadiens vs NY Rangers red vs blue game, where the Habs has to switch from blue helmets to white to increase the contrast.[/quote]
And oh yeah, there have been a couple of red vs orange fiascoes in NCAA basketball that took a few minutes to correct.

Giancarlo|
April 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm |

Correcting myself, the Vikings changed jerseys on the sidelines during the 2nd quarter. It was in October 1964.

JTH|
April 17, 2010 at 8:25 pm |

[quote comment=”386113″]Oops.. Dale Murphy in OF too? or maybe instead of Bonds??[/quote]
Yep. As I said, the question was pre-Bonds/Thomas.

And do you have a guess as to the catcher?

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 8:28 pm |

[quote comment=”386160″][quote comment=”386155″][quote comment=”386152″]Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?[/quote]
One that comes to mind is the infamous all-purple Vikings game in the ’60s, which Ricko probably knows the details of… the Vikes changed at halftime I believe.[/quote]

Phil, I believe, has lots of screen grabs. From LarryB, maybe?

NFL had given teams choice of white or dark at home. For the season, not game by game. Lions missed that Vikes had opted for white, showed up at Met Stadium in their whites. Vikings staffers hustled over to St. Paul’s Midway Stadium (where Vikings practiced back then) to pick up the purple jerseys. Got back with them around halftime, yes. One and only time in that era when Vikings went monochrome purple.

Retention of Pilot elements was because practically as late as spring training the team wasn’t 100% sure whether it would head northwest or northeast when it left Arizona. Those original Brewers unis were, in fact, re-lettered Pilots unis with freshly ordered generic “M” hats. Hence, the maritime-style sleeve striping, which has little to do with beer. Except maybe in the Exxon Valdez incident.

Doesn’t mean the unis didn’t look good, just that it wasn’t a Brewers design per se.

—Rcko

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 8:29 pm |

[quote comment=”386164″][quote comment=”386113″]Oops.. Dale Murphy in OF too? or maybe instead of Bonds??[/quote]
Yep. As I said, the question was pre-Bonds/Thomas.

And do you have a guess as to the catcher?[/quote]

Bench?

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 8:29 pm |

or Yogi.

Ricko|
April 17, 2010 at 8:33 pm |

Hey, Night Train Lane.
A DB wearing #81, for those of you who don’t recall such things.

Completion of suspended game from yesterday is first on the docket. Sox wearing the red alts. The Rays have elected to change to their normal road jerseys instead of the Robinson versions they wore last night.

I’ll update the second game once it starts.[/quote]
Sox should be in home whites, there was someting in today’s Globe that said ” red tops, then white tops”, or something to that effect.[/quote]
Yeppers. Sox in white, Rays in the navy blue alt top for Game 2.

SlimAndSlam|
April 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm |

Dang, it’s after 9pm EDT and no one’s guessed the game from the scoreboard? Maybe I missed it.

The only redeeming things after 15 innings of the Mets-Cards game are Brendan Ryan’s stirrups

BurghFan|
April 17, 2010 at 9:34 pm |

Phil,

The paper and “samples” are both visible.

Mike,

Another Pens example springs to mind- the mid 90’s logo. In my mind, it’s a far better designed logo- clean design, much more realistic penguin, overall great look. In the mind of Pens fans, it signifies the isles ending their chance of a 3 peat, with the new unis breaking their streak of cups. Now it’s the “pigeon”, even though it was much closer to a penguin then the skating penguin will ever be, and the far superior design.

It was always the “corporate pigeon”. The skating penguin might be less realistic (not even including the hockey gear), but there’s no mistaking what it is. The ’90s logo is much more generic. (They had the good sense not to switch to something like what they use in Wilkes-Barre, which was under consideration at one point.)

Those of us who remember the original blue unis know that there is a lot of failure associated with the skating penguin, as well as the success. It’s the logo that defines the franchise, though, and I can’t tell you how thrilled I was when they reintroduced it on their alternate jerseys a decade ago.

Showing us why the Bills didn’t bother to wear their REAL 1960 (& 61) unis for the AFL 50th celebration last fall?

But for the difference between Honolulu and Royal, we’d already seen them whenever the Lions did their throwbacks.

Kaptain K|
April 17, 2010 at 9:47 pm |

[quote comment=”386170″][quote comment=”386152″]Has there ever been a case of a team wearing 2 different unis in the same game?[/quote]
Didn’t Notre Dame football switch up jerseys at halftime once?[/quote]

From what I’ve read and seen via photos from games, Rockne did it on numerous ocassions during his coaching tenure as did Frank Leahy at least once (he generally had his teams clad in green jerseys); as I recall, it happened against opponents who also wore dark jerseys (Army, Navy, Iowa). ND started those games wearing dark blue jerseys and switched to kelly green jerseys at halftime.

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 9:49 pm |

[quote comment=”386181″]The only redeeming things after 15 innings of the Mets-Cards game are Brendan Ryan’s stirrups[/quote]

A no-hitter for Ubaldo Jimenez is a no-hitter for Team Stirrups.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/photos?photoId=587457&gameId=300417115#photo_587457
Three other thoughts in this picture:
1. I don’t know what that dot on his right leg is. A sticker? A woven-in blank spot to write a jersey number? A photographic quirk?
2. I don’t know how I feel about those purple shoestrings.
3. I hereby predict a lot more of that damn black jersey this year.

Ryan B|
April 17, 2010 at 10:15 pm |

And now the Cards used a position player to pitch the 18th because they ran out of regular pitchers.

Of course, he pitched a clean inning.

Ryan B|
April 17, 2010 at 10:28 pm |

And now another position player, Joe Mather, is in for the 19th. Pitcher Kyle Lohse is playing left field.

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 10:32 pm |

woohoo!

mets flexing that muscle you just knew they were holding back for 19 innings

Darrell|
April 17, 2010 at 10:44 pm |

Final versions of the new Indiana football uniforms unveiled today during the spring game.

Love this part:Stripes will be on jersey shoulder instead of on the pant, to differentiate Indiana from other collegiate football teams
Right. Because the interlocking IU logo on the helmet and pants and the HOOSIERS wordmark on the jersey didn’t do that already.

But at least they’re 40% lighter, cuz the weight of the unis is obviously what’s been holding them back all these years.

JTH|
April 17, 2010 at 11:14 pm |

[quote comment=”386187″]A no-hitter for Ubaldo Jimenez is a no-hitter for Team Stirrups.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/photos?photoId=587457&gameId=300417115#photo_587457
Three other thoughts in this picture:
1. I don’t know what that dot on his right leg is. A sticker? A woven-in blank spot to write a jersey number? A photographic quirk?
2. I don’t know how I feel about those purple shoestrings.
3. I hereby predict a lot more of that damn black jersey this year.[/quote]

+ 1 for the stirrups; -1 for the jersey.

Are the Rockies another team that lets the starter choose the jersey? Because I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen Jiminez wear anything but that uniform of brutality.

Seth|
April 17, 2010 at 11:28 pm |

What about the Angels uniform fiasco when they were owned by Disney? The winged A was a joke. It was not until the team brought the halos back did they make the playoffs and win their first World Series in 2002. I was skeptical of the red at first but I would not want to live without it. It always reminds me of the great run in 2002.

LI Phil|
April 17, 2010 at 11:39 pm |

[quote comment=”386198″]

+ 1 for the stirrups; -1-10 for the jersey vest, same color sleeves and road pins on pants.[/quote]

—Ricko[/quote]
Gorgeous shoes w/ white laces – just as they should be.

Frank Mercogliano|
April 18, 2010 at 12:57 am |

I can’t remember the date but the Pirates had a suspended game and they wore a different uniform for the second day when they resumed it. All I remember is that the red vests were involved, and it was talked about here at Uniwatch.

But a hell of a lot closer than the wretched fisherman // sea sick or RBK swift uni bullshit.
[/quote]

Most Islanders fans overlook that the current third jersey is a rather mixed rendering of the original Isles blue jersey … which is too bad, since the team wore a throwback jersey several years ago that was far superior. The Reebok template makes for a poor substitute. The Stanley Cup era uniforms were cleaner, and, while the fisherman logo was so-so, the version of the wave jersey with the old logo was not bad (one would want to work on the fonts and lettering, however).

Islanders fans are obsessed by jersey issues.

Perry|
April 18, 2010 at 2:15 am |

[quote comment=”386198″][quote comment=”386187″]A no-hitter for Ubaldo Jimenez is a no-hitter for Team Stirrups.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/photos?photoId=587457&gameId=300417115#photo_587457
Three other thoughts in this picture:
1. I don’t know what that dot on his right leg is. A sticker? A woven-in blank spot to write a jersey number? A photographic quirk?
2. I don’t know how I feel about those purple shoestrings.
3. I hereby predict a lot more of that damn black jersey this year.[/quote]

+ 1 for the stirrups; -1 for the jersey.

Are the Rockies another team that lets the starter choose the jersey? Because I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen Jiminez wear anything but that uniform of brutality.[/quote]

Yeah, supposedly the starter picks the jersey. Ubal does wear it a lot, but not always. They’ve only worn the blac vest a couple of times this year, thankfully; I predict that thanks to the no-hitter tonight we’ll be seeing it more.

scott|
April 18, 2010 at 6:27 am |

[quote comment=”386199″]What about the Angels uniform fiasco when they were owned by Disney? The winged A was a joke. It was not until the team brought the halos back did they make the playoffs and win their first World Series in 2002. I was skeptical of the red at first but I would not want to live without it. It always reminds me of the great run in 2002.[/quote]

Those were some of the oddest uniforms the Angels ever wore. Maybe in a few years people will look back at them with some sort of fondness.

Kevin|
April 18, 2010 at 10:52 pm |

[quote comment=”386153″][quote comment=”386139″]Suggestion for future topic: teams that got it right with their debut uniform sets & have been getting it wrong ever since.

Mets, Padres, Brewers (imo), Astros (possibly), Saints, Seahawks (probably), Falcons…[/quote]
Definitely worthy of discussion. One team that immediately comes to mind is the Phoenix Suns. While the original unis were no great shakes, they were at least acceptable. I really don’t have a problem with the Barkley era jerseys either. The current sets, however, should be eclipsed. Terrible use of piping.http://phoenix.fanster.com/phoenix-suns-uniform-history/%5B/quote%5D
You’re kidding, right? The original Sun’s unis were beautiful; the old west style lettering, the copper (a classic and appropriate Arizona color)rising sun on the shorts- great unis. As bad as the current set is, the Barkley-era unis are just awful, typical NBA 90’s marketing to 12 year olds

doc|
April 18, 2010 at 11:08 pm |

[quote comment=”386025″]As a long suffering Bills fan, I can most certainly understand equating success and failure with the Uni set. The current abomination is a case in point. They have stunk for years and the blue pajama’s will forever be associated with losing. Same goes for the 70’s era White Jerseys – Blue Pants, charging Buffalo.

The only two Uni’s they have ever worn that are equated with winning, are the Classic AFL Cookie Gilchrist-Jack Kemp ones that they currently break out as a throwback, and the less aesthetically pleasing, but more succesful Jim Kelly-Thurman Thomas era. They actually went with the Red Hemlet – Royal Blue Jersey – White Pants in the mid 80’s, when they were at the bottom of their 2-14 seasons. But because of the glory years of 89-94 we will always equate that unis set with winning.

As much as I would love to see them go back to the 60’s AFL design full time immediately, I almost hope they wait until they are a better team lest those Uni’s become tainted with losing.[/quote]
Yes please, make the switch to the 60’s throwbacks yesterday,maybe sooner. Maybe tweak the pant stripes a little ( make them wider, and the same red, blue,red as the helmet), but otherwise they’re good to go. The current set will forever be associated with Tom Donahoe, Drew Bledsoe and 10 years of no playoffs.Does a great uniform make a great team? Of course not,but when your team is awful, at least you have the consolation of looking good.I have a hard time even watching the Bills in their current clown suits